Jump to content

sh1pman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,460

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sh1pman

  1. sh1pman
    Bought a smart watch. Now I can’t stop checking my heart rate every 5 minutes for no reason. Please help
  2. sh1pman
    Looks nice and smooth. Weld quality seems to be improving as well.
  3. sh1pman
    He looked like he was going through Tesla production hell again.
  4. sh1pman
    I see the skirt, but I thought that in full-size Starship both domes of the lower rank should be oriented towards the engines (down). Is it not going to be a part of SN2 even if all goes well? edit: I’m dumb, they just made a tank to test the puck under pressure. Sorry, was a bit confused there.
  5. sh1pman
    Shouldn’t the top dome be upside down then, as in this scheme: ?
  6. sh1pman
    This must be the upper (CH4) tank, right?
  7. sh1pman
    Still that’s a lot. Amazing that it even managed to return in one piece. Maybe they map to more than 61 issues.
  8. sh1pman
    Does that mean the Starliner has sixty one issues that need fixing? On top of the two almost catastrophic failures that happened during the flight?
  9. sh1pman
    It looks like a rock troll.
  10. sh1pman
    Really, really didn’t expect to see one of Karlin’s tweets here. Nice surprise. Unfortunately, he also predicts millions dead and unprecedented economic collapse worldwide.
  11. sh1pman
    A colleague told me today that it’s better to stop giving handshakes because of the virus. Not sure if he was serious or he just dislikes me for some reason.
  12. sh1pman
    True. But they would need less fuel reserves than F9 boosters, since jet engines have ISP in high thousands. No grid fins and landing legs either. So I’m not sure which solution is worse for payload mass. Wiki says RD-170s were designed to be used for up to 10 flights each, but, obviously, there’s no data to support that. Maybe they did figure out how to reuse oxygen-rich stage combustion engines multiple times.
  13. sh1pman
    It was very expensive, true, but it’s the reason why they wanted to make it reusable. The boosters wouldn’t need much refurbishment before another launch as they’d only accelerate to ~3 km/s. It’s only the central hydrolox core that would need to have its heat shield checked and/or restored after every flight, similarly to Shuttle and Buran. Launch cost would go down significantly if both stages could survive many flights.
  14. sh1pman
    We could have a fully reusable rocket with payload to LEO similar to Starship 30 years ago. Was too good to be true, I guess...
  15. sh1pman
    So what happened to Mk.2?
  16. sh1pman
    A civilization evolved too far, so the simulation had to be reset in their region to save computational power.
  17. sh1pman
    Exactly. Same design philosophy.
  18. sh1pman
  19. sh1pman
    Payload to LEO. OTOH, payload to beyond Mars orbit will be affected more strongly.
  20. sh1pman
    I don’t think it has anything to do with booster recovery, just that the rocket itself has to be very reliable.
  21. sh1pman
  22. sh1pman
    They need it to travel back to Earth and to other planets and moons.
  23. sh1pman
    Yes. Much production is needed.
  24. sh1pman
    Oxygen is needed for breathing anyway. You just don’t need to have the Sabatier ISRU plant on Titan to fly rockets Starships from it. And solar power is overrated. One TEM reactor should be enough to power (and heat up) the colony and the electrolysis plant.
  25. sh1pman
    Why do they need bigger thrusters? Better control in bad weather conditions?
×
×
  • Create New...